Maya Forstater hearing starts Monday

[MForstater]

Hi all,

Thank you so much for all your support: emotional, intellectual, financial, spiritual(!) reading the Mumsnet feminism board is where this all started for me!

The case starts tomorrow.

It is all online. If you want to watch you need to email the tribunal for a log in to [email protected]

It kicks off at 10am - the first bit will be "admin" between the judges and the lawyers working out the timings, issues and any reporting restrictions .

Once that is all sorted the judge and the panel will go away to read (probably for the rest of Monday and all of Tuesday)

I will most likely give evidence Wednesday and Thursday.

@tribunaltweets will be tweeting the whole thing (assuming they get permission from the judge)

Links to papers will go up throughout the case at www.hiyamaya.net.

Any other questions I am happy to answer them (apart from the ones where I have to say "that is for the tribunal to hear"...)

I have made a spectators guide with FAQs etc here

Lots of love

Maya

I am finding this hugely … interesting. So he admits he doesn’t understand enough about the London office culture and so effectively applied his Washington culture mores to Maya’s situation. Yet in the US people can robustly discuss Trump pros and cons without sanction.

I wonder if he realises yet how helpful he is being.

LE: Saying a man's belief that he is a woman has no basis in material reality is offensive.

This is it. As BC just said this is the very heart of why MF lost her job.

Possibly stupid question for anyone: does it matter that it wasn't as clear that Maya's beliefs were protected at the time, in determining whether CGD acted unlawfully?

@Helleofabore

I am finding this hugely … interesting. So he admits he doesn’t understand enough about the London office culture and so effectively applied his Washington culture mores to Maya’s situation. Yet in the US people can robustly discuss Trump pros and cons without sanction.

I wonder if he realises yet how helpful he is being.

Not just that. He admits he doesn't understand material reality as a concept.

tabbycatstripy got the quote right, mine was slightly off

@tabbycatstripy

Substance/belief: BC on the point here. The claimant has no way of expressing her beliefs, given CGD's institutional position.

This is the crux of the matter. They are constantly talking about the tone of what we are saying that is the problem but when it comes down to it there is no language that we can use that is considered to be acceptable.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Possibly stupid question for anyone: does it matter that it wasn't as clear that Maya's beliefs were protected at the time, in determining whether CGD acted unlawfully?

Not at all.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Possibly stupid question for anyone: does it matter that it wasn't as clear that Maya's beliefs were protected at the time, in determining whether CGD acted unlawfully?

I think that's a good question. I suppose that the court case clarified what the legal position was/is, and that would apply in retrospect? But IANAL.

Signalbox: correct. Her HR manager (ex) just described her core protected beliefs as offensive.

Thank you. I wasn't sure if it would mean that his actions were "reasonable"

LE: CGD treats people in all respect according to their gender identity.
BC: Does CGD have an instituational position on what law shuld be?
LE: Don't know. My focus is internal

BC: So no position on whether someone can say sex =/= gender identity in a debate? Or TW are not women?
LE: Disagree
BC: But this is important. You are then not objecting to HOW she speaks - tone - you are objecting to WHAT she says. To her belief.

LE: I think "a man's internal feelings have no basis in material reality" is offensive.

BC: This may be a good point to pause?
EJ: [finishing a note]
EJ: Yes, we will break. Remind LE must speak to nobody re case. Restart in 10
[BREAK]

I wonder if the suggestion to take a break is an indication that right there, that assertion backs up Maya's claim and BC is inwardly jumping for joy.

This is the crux of the matter. They are constantly talking about the tone of what we are saying that is the problem but when it comes down to it there is no language that we can use that is considered to be acceptable

Exactly so.

We see it on here all the time. Women turn themselves inside out to try to accommodate the shifting requirements of what it’s acceptable to say, and how to say it but ultimately that is not a game that any woman can win, because the only “acceptable” outcome is to cede your own sense of your material reality as a woman.

I won’t.

'I wasn't sure if it would mean that his actions were "reasonable"'

I don't believe you can hide behind not understanding the law. I think for me the question of whether they discriminated against her has been answered.

I predict it will hinge on whether the fact that they did, whether knowingly or not, can be justified given the disruption to business and cost of managing the issue. Her wording may come into this, I don't know.

I wonder if the suggestion to take a break is an indication that right there, that assertion backs up Maya's claim and BC is inwardly jumping for joy

He’s probably off to do a few victory laps of the car park as it does seem like he just got a key witness to say that Maya’s protected beliefs are offensive

Datun:

Yes, BC needs to go outside and pump his fists in the air.

I wonder if the suggestion to take a break is an indication that right there, that assertion backs up Maya's claim and BC is inwardly jumping for joy.

I think so. "Let's all (including those following outside the court) dwell on what he just said before we move on, eh?".

@Sophoclesthefox

This is the crux of the matter. They are constantly talking about the tone of what we are saying that is the problem but when it comes down to it there is no language that we can use that is considered to be acceptable

Exactly so.

We see it on here all the time. Women turn themselves inside out to try to accommodate the shifting requirements of what it’s acceptable to say, and how to say it but ultimately that is not a game that any woman can win, because the only “acceptable” outcome is to cede your own sense of your material reality as a woman.

I won’t.

That's right.

For instance, we can talk about AGP, 'as a concept', but we can't apply it to anyone.

Why not? People are always applying things to other people.

We can talk about cults. But we can't apply it to anything.

Likewise grooming. We can talk about it abstractly till the cows come home, but we can't apply it.

Why not?

Because it's offensive?

So what?

This is really fascinating. Thanks to everyone updating.

Proceedings have resumed.

I don't believe you can hide behind not understanding the law. I think for me the question of whether they discriminated against her has been answered.

If they were advised by Stonewall, at the time, I can readily understand that they were misled. It's happened several times.

But for the love of God, they are now in a court case. You'd think he'd swot up beforehand, and not just 'skim' stuff.

'If they were advised by Stonewall, at the time, I can readily understand that they were misled. It's happened several times.'

A lot of people have been misled but their failure to get proper legal advice, or to get the decision right, is on them.

She might still lose but it will be on either employment status or expression. They have definitely discriminated.

Just catching up with all this. Read Maya's witness statement yesterday .

We can talk about cults. But we can't apply it to anything.

I think the one time I had a message deleted on here it was because I talked about gender ideology in terms of it being cult-like.

LE getting a bit of drubbing over why today he confirmed something as true when he knew it wasn't. There's nothing in this but it's a trick to rattle a witness to soften up for the next round of examination.